The body a temple for the Holy Spirit...

[Twilight]

mark, im not telling you anything below that you dont already know and basically believe...the bible is a spiritual book...the parables that Jesus taught were to teach spiritual lessons. we know, for instance, that the heart isnt literally dirt, with stones, seeds and thorns. but a child of a certain age would take that literally. because it is spiritual and we are fleshly-minded it is still hard for us to get the spiritual lessons intended...

i dont believe the point of the bible is that the HS literally resides in our heart, rewires it or anything like that...i believe that it is stated as such to convey the idea of the closeness that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit wish to have with us...as if they were literally in our hearts....many times we hear someone say, or have said ourselves, "you are in my heart". most all understand what is meant by that.

Teresa, I am going to ask you the same thing I have asked from Pnat.

There is no point keeping discussing the leaves on the tree.

We need to examine the very roots of the tree themselves.

So I am asking you the same thing as I justed asked Pnat.

Are you willing to lay everything of your current understanding aside and come to the Bible fresh to explore this idea that the heart is not just a "pump"?

[pnattmbtc]

The issue here is that you are filtering everything through one of your own fundamental beliefs. And that is, that the "heart" is just a pump. Now unless you are willing to allow the possibility that this is wrong, then nothing I say will make any sense. Where did you get this idea that the "heart" is just a pump?

Did you get it from the bible?

I suspect not.

I rather suspect that you have received this through a cultural bias of the western mind.

How has this bias been established? The last 100+ years has seen mankind focusing on the brain.

The idea of "heart" having function, has been dismissed by science until very recent history. Now out of that cultural mindset, has risen "psychology".

This idea that the "mind" is all there is to the human emotions and thoughts is based on this assumption.

[Twilight]

Mine, however, does. You are flying in the face of science, including experimentation and the scientific method, just as the Catholic church was (which, again, I am not doing by rejecting macro-evolution).

Here's another problem. The Spirit of Prophecy supports my position, in both what I've been writing about the mind, and also my position regarding evolution. So, I see the following supporting my position:

[pnattmbtc]

p:Mine, however, does. You are flying in the face of science, including experimentation and the scientific method, just as the Catholic church was (which, again, I am not doing by rejecting macro-evolution).

Here's another problem. The Spirit of Prophecy supports my position, in both what I've been writing about the mind, and also my position regarding evolution. So, I see the following supporting my position:

T:And this is why we will never be able to discuss it Pnat.

You already think you have all the light you need on the subject.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

mark, im not telling you anything below that you dont already know and basically believe...the bible is a spiritual book...the parables that Jesus taught were to teach spiritual lessons. we know, for instance, that the heart isnt literally dirt, with stones, seeds and thorns. but a child of a certain age would take that literally. because it is spiritual and we are fleshly-minded it is still hard for us to get the spiritual lessons intended...

i dont believe the point of the bible is that the HS literally resides in our heart, rewires it or anything like that...i believe that it is stated as such to convey the idea of the closeness that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit wish to have with us...as if they were literally in our hearts....many times we hear someone say, or have said ourselves, "you are in my heart". most all understand what is meant by that.

Teresa, I am going to ask you the same thing I have asked from Pnat....

So I am asking you the same thing as I justed asked Pnat.

Are you willing to lay everything of your current understanding aside and come to the Bible fresh to explore this idea that the heart is not just a "pump"?

not if it involves doing away with all pertinent scriptures on this point to ascertain the spiritual meaning God intended...

and not, my dear brother, if it means taking on spiritualism...

http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com/node/765

http://www.answering-christianity.com/heart_thinking_and_processing_miracle.htm

http://www.paulpearsall.com/info/press/4.html

Hal Zina Bennett and Susan J. Sparrow are a husband-wife team who collaborate both as authors and as creative writing teachers and coaches. Together they have over 30 successful books, both fiction and non-fiction. Hal's The Well Body Book is legendary, since it helped to launch the holistic health movement. Susan and Hal live with two small dogs in a remote village on a lake in Northern California. Their books together include Follow Your Bliss, Spirit Guides, and Write From the Heart. Hal's newest book, Spirit Animals and the Wheel of Life, explores Nature-based spirituality as a way of healing our relationships with our planet, ourselves and each other. Susan is presently working on a new book about women and their perspectives on marriage. Susan and Hal are co-founders of Tenacity Press, an independent book publisher, and Write From the Heart Seminars.

http://www.lostartsofthemind.com/2006/11/can-your-heart-think-and-feel.html

http://www.ukapologetics.net/biblicalheart.htm

[teresaq]

pnat pointed out the bolded part below...

Quote:

The revelation of Gods Character is essential. But that revelation has to be revealed through us. Which is why God has given us the gift of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. To produce the fruit of Gods Character in us.

I do not think we should seperate it so determinedly.

As to heart, yes I believe the Holy Spirit takes His seat in the human heart, in some spiritual way that I do not understand.

Why? Because that is what the scripture states. Do I understand what exactly God does and how? No. But I accept it by faith.

Because God said it.

Basically you're saying you believe what you believe because this is what you believe. What can be discussed here?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

p:Mine, however, does. You are flying in the face of science, including experimentation and the scientific method, just as the Catholic church was (which, again, I am not doing by rejecting macro-evolution).

Here's another problem. The Spirit of Prophecy supports my position, in both what I've been writing about the mind, and also my position regarding evolution. So, I see the following supporting my position:

T:And this is why we will never be able to discuss it Pnat.

You already think you have all the light you need on the subject.

No I don't. I'm open to receive more light. I've not claimed to have all the light on this subject. I just want light that agrees with:

1.Reason and common sense.

2.The Spirit of Prophecy.

3.The scientific method.

4.Lexicons.

5.Translations.

6.Commentaries

That's not an unreasonable request, is it?

Quote:

So there is nowhere I can go with this.

Sure there is! Present some evidence to support your point of view.

Quote:

But the most dangerous statement you have made is this one:

Originally Posted By: Pnat

The Spirit of Prophecy supports my position,

It is this very attitude that inhibits discussion of truth.

If you disagree with this statement, present a counter-argument. I've been wrong before. I'm happy to change my opinion, if presented with evidence to support a differing opinion. I hold to many ideas I didn't used to.

Quote:

How can I discuss anything with you, when you already "know it all"? That you and the SOP are in "total agreement"? I cannot. What is there now to discuss? Nothing. This attitude has closed the discussion. Do you see that?

No, this isn't true. Just a consideration of the positions I hold is evidence to my being open-minded.

Quote:

Your argument is basically this:

"Science agrees with me, Ellen White agrees with me, I am right."

Where is the opportunity for discussion in that?

The same as in any other discussion, Mark! You present some evidence, so argument, to support your point of view. Quote something from the SOP, quote some scientific article suggesting that the seat of the emotions is in the heart, quote some Lexicon, or translation, or commentary. There's all sorts of things you can do, Mark. I'm open to evidence! Let's see some!

Quote:

Until you surrender that attitude, there is no purpose in me trying to discuss anything with you.

As I've pointed out, I'm happy to change my opinion, as I've changed my opinions on a great deal of items in the past. Present your case!

Would you be interested in discovering what the meaning of "heart and mind" was in the early church?

What exactly that meant and how they understood it.

That is what I want.

An apostolic understanding of the meanings of these words.

That means however, that we have to leave behind 20th century psychology and go back to how the early church understood it, in the person of Jesus, Paul etc.

If you are willing to do that, we can proceed. :-)

Mark :-)

[pnattmbtc]

Would you be interested in discovering what the meaning of "heart and mind" was in the early church?

What exactly that meant and how they understood it.

That is what I want.

An apostolic understanding of the meanings of these words.

That means however, that we have to leave behind 20th century psychology and go back to how the early church understood it, in the person of Jesus, Paul etc.

If you are willing to do that, we can proceed. :-)

Anything you'd like to present would be fine. I'd also be interested in your responding to points I've made and questions I've asked.

[Twilight]

I am offering for us to study what "heart and mind" meant in the minds of the Apostolic church.

If you are willing, we can go forward.

I suggest we leave all other subjects behind for now.

Are you willing?

[teresaq]

perhaps this was overlooked,

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Anything you'd like to present would be fine. I'd also be interested in your responding to points I've made and questions I've asked.

aside from that,

how do you intend to ascertain what it meant to the apostolic church since they are no longer with us to discuss with us, is my question.

in addition, it would have to be determined that any are basing their beliefs on 20th century psychology instead of the bible....

we would also need to be careful that we are not taking on the spiritualistic beliefs of those below,not if it involves doing away with all pertinent scriptures on this point to ascertain the spiritual meaning God intended...

and not, my dear brother, if it means taking on spiritualism...

http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com/node/765

http://www.answering-christianity.com/heart_thinking_and_processing_miracle.htm

http://www.paulpearsall.com/info/press/4.html

Hal Zina Bennett and Susan J. Sparrow are a husband-wife team who collaborate both as authors and as creative writing teachers and coaches. Together they have over 30 successful books, both fiction and non-fiction. Hal's The Well Body Book is legendary, since it helped to launch the holistic health movement. Susan and Hal live with two small dogs in a remote village on a lake in Northern California. Their books together include Follow Your Bliss, Spirit Guides, and Write From the Heart. Hal's newest book, Spirit Animals and the Wheel of Life, explores Nature-based spirituality as a way of healing our relationships with our planet, ourselves and each other. Susan is presently working on a new book about women and their perspectives on marriage. Susan and Hal are co-founders of Tenacity Press, an independent book publisher, and Write From the Heart Seminars.

http://www.lostartsofthemind.com/2006/11/can-your-heart-think-and-feel.html

http://www.ukapologetics.net/biblicalheart.htm

[Twilight]

perhaps this was overlooked,

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Anything you'd like to present would be fine. I'd also be interested in your responding to points I've made and questions I've asked.

aside from that,

how do you intend to ascertain what it meant to the apostolic church since they are no longer with us to discuss with us, is my question.

in addition, it would have to be determined that any are basing their beliefs on 20th century psychology instead of the bible....

we would also need to be careful that we are not taking on the spiritualistic beliefs of those below,not if it involves doing away with all pertinent scriptures on this point to ascertain the spiritual meaning God intended...

and not, my dear brother, if it means taking on spiritualism...

http://www.philosophyoffreedom.com/node/765

http://www.answering-christianity.com/heart_thinking_and_processing_miracle.htm

http://www.paulpearsall.com/info/press/4.html

Hal Zina Bennett and Susan J. Sparrow are a husband-wife team who collaborate both as authors and as creative writing teachers and coaches. Together they have over 30 successful books, both fiction and non-fiction. Hal's The Well Body Book is legendary, since it helped to launch the holistic health movement. Susan and Hal live with two small dogs in a remote village on a lake in Northern California. Their books together include Follow Your Bliss, Spirit Guides, and Write From the Heart. Hal's newest book, Spirit Animals and the Wheel of Life, explores Nature-based spirituality as a way of healing our relationships with our planet, ourselves and each other. Susan is presently working on a new book about women and their perspectives on marriage. Susan and Hal are co-founders of Tenacity Press, an independent book publisher, and Write From the Heart Seminars.

http://www.lostartsofthemind.com/2006/11/can-your-heart-think-and-feel.html

http://www.ukapologetics.net/biblicalheart.htm

We would do what all good Adventists always do...

We would isolate ourselves with the bible.

Immerse ourselves in the texts.

Explore the context.

And arrive at the best conclusion we can prayerfully...

But it will only work, if we do not come trying to impose a 20th century mindset on the bible.

[teresaq]

well, twilight, it appears that you are the decider of what scriptures to use, who has what mindset, as well as who are the authorities to be believed (see above links).

since you still have not acknowledged

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Anything you'd like to present would be fine. I'd also be interested in your responding to points I've made and questions I've asked.

it would appear that this is basically a one-sided discussion where you are right, sdas are wrong...end of subject.

[Twilight]

well, twilight, it appears that you are the decider of what scriptures to use, who has what mindset, as well as who are the authorities to be believed (see above links).

since you still have not acknowledged ...it would appear that this is basically a one-sided discussion where you are right, sdas are wrong...end of subject.

So you consider yourself an SDA and that you speak for all SDA's Teresa?

That you and "SDA's" are one, therefore I am wrong?

Do I not see you condemning this type of attitude on a regular basis? :-)

I am currently in negotiations with Pnat as to how this discussion should go forward.

If you just want to criticise and condemn me as opposed to "all SDA's", I suggest this discussion is not for you.

[Guest]

Makes sense to me.....

[Woody]

Makes sense to me.....

not 2 me

[Twilight]

Basically, I want the understanding that Jesus and the apostles had.

Without all the garnish.

Simple meal for a simple man...

[teresaq]

mark, you appear to have taken my post and instead of addressing what was said just turned it around. you and richard appear, also, to have quite short memories. your very words regarding "adventists" in the bottom quote. my comment was based on everything you have said...

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

well, twilight, it appears that you are the decider of what scriptures to use, who has what mindset, as well as who are the authorities to be believed (see above links).

since you still have not acknowledged ...it would appear that this is basically a one-sided discussion where you are right, sdas are wrong...end of subject.

So you consider yourself an SDA and that you speak for all SDA's Teresa? That you and "SDA's" are one, therefore I am wrong?

Do I not see you condemning this type of attitude on a regular basis? :-)

[teresaq]

oh and you left this little tidbit out.

Quote:

pnattmbtc: Anything you'd like to present would be fine. I'd also be interested in your responding to points I've made and questions I've asked.

richard, you come across as much more intelligent when you leave off the i---- remarks.

the above quote was left out of the middle of this,

Quote:

well, twilight, it appears that you are the decider of what scriptures to use, who has what mindset, as well as who are the authorities to be believed (see above links).

since you still have not acknowledged ... (quote left out-tq )

it would appear that this is basically a one-sided discussion where you are right, sdas are wrong...end of subject.

[Twilight]

I have decided not to continue any conversations with you at the moment Teresa as I am finding them negative and your attitude aggressive and condemnatory.

[teresaq]

that is certainly one option you can take when it is shown something came from you, and not me, the person you accused...

[pnattmbtc]

Mark, as I stated before, anything you want to present is fine with me. Also, as I stated before, I would appreciate it if you would answer my questions and respond to the points I make. However, if you choose not to do so, and prefer to present something new, go ahead please.

[Twilight]

Mark, as I stated before, anything you want to present is fine with me. Also, as I stated before, I would appreciate it if you would answer my questions and respond to the points I make. However, if you choose not to do so, and prefer to present something new, go ahead please.

I would prefer at this point just to establish what the bible does and does not state and try to find the viewpoint of the early Christians on this matter.

I appreciate your offer to let your points remain unanswered at this point, it is very civil of you.

If you are happy I will start a new thread "again", so that the discussion can go forward with a clear set of rules in place.

Is that okay?

Mark :-)

[pnattmbtc]

Basically, I want the understanding that Jesus and the apostles had.

Without all the garnish.

Simple meal for a simple man..

This is an admirable goal. How do you suggest going about this? Just by considering that the early church fathers believed? It seems to me that the items I listed

1.Reason and common sense.

2.The Spirit of Prophecy.

3.The scientific method.

4.Lexicons.

5.Translations.

6.Commentaries

are also valuable. However, I'll admit that I missed a bet, so to speak, with the early church fathers. I do feel this is a worthwhile source of information (which I should have included on my list), very much so, so would be interested in seeing what you have to present. If you'd like to do so on a new thread, I'd be interested.

Regarding teresaq, I hope she will contribute as well, and I hope you'll respond to her comments. I think she has good insights, and as to her being sharp in her posting, it's very difficult on the internet to communicate tone accurately. That is, if one could hear another's voice on the phone, or, better yet, in person not only hear the voice, but see the attending body language, one would get a much better sense of where one is really coming from. On the internet, it's very easy for sincere questions to come off as sarcasm, and for criticisms to be interpreted as much more severe than they were intended. I had an experience just recently at work reflecting this, where I took some written comments far more negatively than what was intended, which I thought was a possibility, and was easy to establish when I had a chance to speak to the author in person.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Basically, I want the understanding that Jesus and the apostles had.

Without all the garnish.

Simple meal for a simple man..

This is an admirable goal. How do you suggest going about this? Just by considering that the early church fathers believed? It seems to me that the items I listed

1.Reason and common sense.

2.The Spirit of Prophecy.

3.The scientific method.

4.Lexicons.

5.Translations.

6.Commentaries

are also valuable. However, I'll admit that I missed a bet, so to speak, with the early church fathers. I do feel this is a worthwhile source of information (which I should have included on my list), very much so, so would be interested in seeing what you have to present. If you'd like to do so on a new thread, I'd be interested.

Regarding teresaq, I hope she will contribute as well, and I hope you'll respond to her comments. I think she has good insights, and as to her being sharp in her posting, it's very difficult on the internet to communicate tone accurately. That is, if one could hear another's voice on the phone, or, better yet, in person not only hear the voice, but see the attending body language, one would get a much better sense of where one is really coming from. On the internet, it's very easy for sincere questions to come off as sarcasm, and for criticisms to be interpreted as much more severe than they were intended. I had an experience just recently at work reflecting this, where I took some written comments far more negatively than what was intended, which I thought was a possibility, and was easy to establish when I had a chance to speak to the author in person.

I would say that the materials are anything from scripture as a start.

Anything from the culture of the first century (I think it will get a little murky after that).

I would be careful of overuse of lexicons, as they will have a bias in them.

I do not think we should use the SOP in this instance, as we are trying to keep this as simple as possible.

When we have both reached our conclusions, we could then start a new thread throwing it open to the SOP.

That will stop it getting over complicated very fast.

I suggest that we also have a rule of addressing the argument only and not the person.

I am happy for Teresa to join in, as long as it is for candid discussion and not to attack me as a person or try to represent me as a "spiritualist", which she has done now on many occassions and never apologised.

I have forgiven her of course, but if she does not confess that sin, then her behaviour will not change and the discussion will become one that is just a petty squable where my views are just misrepresented continually.

So the choice is in her own hands.

But I would welcome her to the discussion if she was not engaging in personal attacks, but rather arguing the point. :-)

Proposed rules of discussion:

Bible as the basis.

Jesus' understanding as the foundational corner stone.

Limited reliance on Greek Lexicons where the author may be arguing a personal bias into the understanding.

No reliance on current psychology or scientific knowledge.

No reliance on the SOP to keep the discussion small and manageable.

All discussion to be focused on the argument and not those proposing the argument.

If you are happy with that, then I will start a new thread Pnat.

Mark :-)

[pnattmbtc]

I would say that the materials are anything from scripture as a start.